First RIAA Case Victim Finally Speaks Out 204
An anonymous reader writes with a link to an article at P2P Net about the very first victim of the RIAA's file-sharing litigation sweep. The site gave Jammie Thomas the chance to explain in her own words what the last two years have been like. She recounts her experiances with subpoenas, Best Buy, and most of all, stress. Even after all this time, her case is still in legal limbo: "As for what's next, my attorney filed a motion to have the verdict thrown out or to have the judgment reduced based on the constitutionality of the judgment. This is not an appeal, this is a post trial motion. We are currently waiting for the plaintiffs to file their response to our motion. The judge will not make a decision on that motion until after the plaintiffs have filed. The timeline for appeals is we have 30 days after the judge decides all post trial motions before we file any appeals ... I do know personally I cannot allow my case to end this way, with this judgment. My case will be used as a sledgehammer by the RIAA to force other people caught in the RIAA's driftnets to settle, even if they are or are not guilty of illegally sharing music online."
Re:I'm glad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Enough with the spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Enough with the spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, if you think paying $20 for a DRM'ed CD full of crappy, with low-audio quality music at the same price that a vinyl disc in the old times is NOT a ripoff, then I ask what the fuck are YOU on.
And here's a proof that the RIAA are *NOT* representing the artists:
Re:Enough with the spin (Score:4, Interesting)
Financial ruin for the rest of your days over 100MB. Fair? Not even close. $222,000. $2220/MB. Those had best have been some seriously good songs to be worth $6-7000 per song.
The RIAA has been playing an extortion game all along. The settlement was probably not fair either, and anyone in their right minds knows that. No, what needs to happen is a large-scale act of civil disobedience (and in reality, that's already happening) and whether or not this one person gets things set straight or not could very well set the course for how this all plays out here in the US. I don't necessarily buy into the poster-child image, but anyone that the RIAA has come after for downloading can wear the title of "victim" and be correct in doing so IMHO. If you're not pressing CD's or running a large-scale piracy ring, they have no business coming after you. I don't care WHAT the law says. I wish I had the magic wand that fixed the fact that they aren, but I don't.
Re:Victim? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm glad... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason you don't like her is because she lost. And you are somehow blaming her for that.
Re:Enough with the spin (Score:5, Interesting)
1) CDs are not $20
2) CDs are not DRMed, and haven't been for a while now. Even when there was DRM, it was only on a handful of CDs.
3) The quality of music on CDs is not low quality.
4) Trent is the exception, not the rule. Successful artists like Trent can afford to go it alone and don't speak for the vast majority of artists on record labels who are struggling to make it. For evidence, you only need to look at which and how many artists are speaking out. There simply isn't an outcry, and one artist doesn't make a movement.
5) Anyone who suggests $10-$13 is a rip-off for a CD needs to think about the fact that that is the same as 3 cups of coffee at starbucks and often less than the price of a new book. Think about the amount of use you get out of an album.
6) Read what the jurors wrote. She's clearly guilty, and even her legal strategy acknowledges that. What she's trying to do now is get her sentence reduced.
People who make creative works for a living deserve to get paid, if that's what they want (Radiohead and others can give their stuff away for free if they want). The rights of the many (pirates) don't outweigh the rights of the few (creators). No one is fooled by the indignation of those who wave the banner of "fair use". Everyone knows the vast majority of these people are just pirates, trying to protect their own hides.
Re:I'm glad... (Score:3, Interesting)
The OP's point: This particular individual appears to be a member of group one, but is trying to get in front of groups one and two (the quote about 'this judgement will encourage people, innocent or otherwise, to settle').
Personally, I think the penalties are *outrageous*. More, they probably constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Several hundred thousand dollars for $150 worth of merchandise? $25K is the cost of a car, and the upper limit of the statutory damages could easily pay off several homes. The law is clearly aimed at people running a business, but the it's being applied to clearly aren't. This is true regardless which group she actually is in. She should be on the hook for a tenth of that or less.
As for blaming her for losing -- she had a weak case (the metadata matched known pirate distros, the songs matched her musical taste, the userID is the same as one she's used for years), she got weak legal representation (there are several legal avenues being pursued in other cases that weren't even brought up in this one, and if you don't bring it up you waive it), and she decided to fight. Her attorney should have advised her to take their settlement offer. (Perhaps the first one did, so she found another. We don't know.) Instead, she went to trial. She would have been much better off taking their settlement offer, if she's guilty then she should have known they had a mountain of evidence. Does that mean I think the RIAA should have done what they did? No. But she had multiple opportunities to avoid this, and chose not to use them. So it is fair to say she takes some of the blame. After all, it is quite likely she actually did misappropriate their copyrighted material.
Re:I'm glad... (Score:1, Interesting)
Another point to consider is this, Jammie Thomas lost on the merits of her case. What's done is done, but thanks to our wonderful court system, she now has the opportunity to argue the law BEHIND the merits of her case. Think about it, she has the chance to challange all of the issues that are plaguing all of these cases and maybe get answers from the courts on some of those issues. Including: is making available copyright infringement? is the judegment constitutional? is making a backup copy theft or does it fall within the rights of fair use (based on Sony BMGs testimony that making one copy is politely saying stealing one copy)? is the "investigation" legal?
0
I read in an article somewhere (sorry, I dont' have time to find it) comparing her losing this case to a boxing term called "Rope-a-Dope". I wonder now if she did know in advance she might not win and her attorney was already planning on how to best appeal any negative verdict while stopping the RIAA at the same time? You may not like her and you may not like her case, but her case has the potential to bring the RIAAs extortion tactics to an abrupt end. And that is something I can easily support.